Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

After the verdict was read in the defamation trial between writer E Jean Carroll and former president Donald Trump, the judge overseeing the trial suggested the jurors never reveal their identities.

At the end of the two-week trial, the jurors, who were purposefully made anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, are now free to identify themselves by name if they wish.

“My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury,” Judge Lewis Kaplan advised them in the courtroom.

Judge Kaplan did not explicitly explain why he was offering the advice, however, previous legal actions against the ex-president have led to threats of violence against both jurors and judges from Trump supporters.

  • nyctre@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 months ago

    That’s for his followers, to rile them up and keep them loyal, that’s not really what he believes. Not to say he isn’t a dumb cunt, he is, but this is not an example of that.

      • Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone
        0·
        10 months ago

        I can already hear the outraged clucking from gaggles of fuckwits as they prepare to empty their retirement savings to send to him in support.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 months ago

      I agree it’s mostly for his followers, but I think it’s arguable that it’s an example of both. I’m sure he really doesn’t know (or understand the difference) or confused this with another trial, or both.

      • JoBo@feddit.uk
        0·
        10 months ago

        He is not as smart as he thinks or would like everyone else to believe but he does know exactly what he is doing here. Truth does not matter to the right and right-wing authoritarians (who are the people who follow narcissistic fascists) just love this schtick.

        This was written in 2006 and every time I read it, I have to check the date wasn’t actually 2016:

        So (to foreshadow later chapters a little) suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. (I apologize for putting you in this role, but it will only last for one more sentence.) Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs or low RWAs? Isn’t it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby low RWAs, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song? So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the RWAs hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right.

        The Authoritarians